• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Can I applaud the Mayor for his leadership and attention to the responsibilities of his office in dealing with public health? He has rightly highlighted that it is very much as issue of equality and we can talk as much as we want about education and that is very valuable work but actually, it is the poorest children in London who suffer most from tooth decay. What I would ask is whether he would support a wider public health programme in addition to any debate about fluoridation, that would reduce the unnecessary onslaught of sugar on children's teeth. You will...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

You say that you are doing all that you can but clearly the Government inspector does not think you are doing all that you can otherwise they would not have ordered this change.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

No, but you have hit the nail on the head when you said people are happy to travel for leisure but really do not want to spend, if they can avoid it, half the morning and then half the evening travelling to and from work. Public policies can actually make significant impacts on that one way or another.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

We are never going to solve the problems of public transport if we are always encouraging people to make longer and longer journeys. This leads to more and more crowding on our transport system and more and more pressures on it. Surely the objective of trying to reduce people's overall need to travel is a reasonable and sensible objective, whatever the current constraints.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

You say the others are small changes but they do make a point about minimising the need to travel. You previously admitted when you were being scrutinised by the Assembly's Planning Committee that the London Plan would lead to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the need to travel. Also, in evidence to the EIP, Transport for London (TfL) confirmed that the average trip made per person in the morning peak would rise by 13% by 2016, which is quite a significant increase in people's travelling. This is not a minor point; this is surely a major point, is...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

It is very much a matter of opinion, in relation to the examination in public, the extent to which that the process endorsed the overall plan or not. Certainly from our perspective on the Assembly side, there were a number of major points we made in our submissions where the inspectors seem to have sided with us. That said, I quite understand the difficulty of making major announcements in drips and drabs. You do not want to get in to a discussion and when we get on to housing later, let us stick to the London Housing Strategy rather than...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

What confidence can you have in that when TfL has over the coming years a deficit, or a funding gap, of some £560 million when Government so far has indicated reductions in grant to London Transport of £150 million plus and £200 million plus? Does that not speak of a pretty bad deal that you have done for London in negotiating with Government when we have actually ended up with less grant coming in than we are raising? We have actually ended up with this £560 million funding gap. Does that not fundamentally undermine your whole plan?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Is not the greatest threat to the London Plan the fact that the transport infrastructure, which almost all sides of this Chamber would like to see implemented, is dependent significantly on central government funding? For this there has been absolutely no guarantee in respect of any one of the significant projects that London needs to go forward? How can we guarantee that that happens? Do you think that that is therefore sensibly reflected in the inspectors' recommendation that the policy in this regard should be rewritten to show specifically the phasing of the transport infrastructure projects and specifically to set...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

The real issue is how to implement the London Plan, which will deliver sustainable economic growth and environmental improvement in London. Mayor, are you satisfied that TfL are taking all the steps they need to be taking now in order to safeguard the land they will need to take for strategic infrastructure development in London? I greatly respect the work of the Planning Decisions Unit, who advise you on looking at the borough UDPs and planning applications. Do you think the links are now good enough between TfL forward planning and the implementation through the planning decisions process because it...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I think we on this side actually very warmly welcome the fact that the EIP has endorsed the London Plan by and large with one or two exceptions, and I know there is a debate to be had yet about some of those issues. Do you not think, Mayor, that the point that is being made by our Green Party colleagues over there in a sense fundamentally undermines the London Plan? The whole point of having the London Plan focusing on providing jobs, houses, businesses and quality of life for London and particularly focused around the Thames Gateway area, absolutely...